Which of these youthful ideals...

Blacksword wrote: There is no God. I also believe that nation states will eventually go, but we are a century away from that at least - and I don't support the idea, I just believe it will happen. People will be pursauded of the need to do away with borders, over time and through careful programing in the media, peddled by neo liberal governments. I've always beeved monogamy is important as is the family unit, although I don't believe that allowing same sex couples to adopt etc is part of some kind of plan to 'destroy the family' Rolls eyes...

Maybe it's my fault that I don't quite get the no borders thing, but if there are no borders then Canada and the US will be one. Germany will be Greece and Greece will be Germany (and everything in between). Is it seriously proposed that Germans should be able to vote in a Greek election? Or Americans in a Canadian election? How does one manage to distinguish any voting district from another voting district without borders?

lazland wrote: Blacksword wrote: I do not believe there is a God. Fixed

Nope... Atheist KNOW there is no god!!!

That's what makes us vastly superiors...

gullible religious dud(e)s believe... We know

Dayvenkirq wrote: If we are talking borders between nations, then I don't think there will ever be any elimination of the borders as long as there are communities that try to preserve their own identity. But if we are talking borders between districts within the same nation, then that's a whole another story. (I know these are all details from a long, long time ago, but mayhaps relevant to some extent. See this and this.)

I've always interpreted the no borders advocates as being against all borders, from national borders on down to the fences that keep them out of concerts they haven't bought tickets to. I don't see a difference in any case. It's not less of an imposition if a local sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma is elected by voters in California as opposed to voters in Mexico. I don't see how democracy (national or local) can co-exist with a no borders philosophy.

^  All of that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

HackettFan wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: If we are talking borders between nations, then I don't think there will ever be any elimination of the borders as long as there are communities that try to preserve their own identity. But if we are talking borders between districts within the same nation, then that's a whole another story. (I know these are all details from a long, long time ago, but mayhaps relevant to some extent. See this and this.) I've always interpreted the no borders advocates as being against all borders, from national borders on down to the fences that keep them out of concerts they haven't bought tickets to. I don't see a difference in any case. It's not less of an imposition if a local sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma is elected by voters in California as opposed to voters in Mexico. I don't see how democracy (national or local) can co-exist with a no borders philosophy.

Edited by Dean - October 18 2015 at 04:23

HackettFan wrote: Blacksword wrote: There is no God. I also believe that nation states will eventually go, but we are a century away from that at least - and I don't support the idea, I just believe it will happen. People will be pursauded of the need to do away with borders, over time and through careful programing in the media, peddled by neo liberal governments. I've always beeved monogamy is important as is the family unit, although I don't believe that allowing same sex couples to adopt etc is part of some kind of plan to 'destroy the family' Rolls eyes... Maybe it's my fault that I don't quite get the no borders thing, but if there are no borders then Canada and the US will be one. Germany will be Greece and Greece will be Germany (and everything in between). Is it seriously proposed that Germans should be able to vote in a Greek election? Or Americans in a Canadian election? How does one manage to distinguish any voting district from another voting district without borders?

I think it's a little more complex than that. In the EU there are effectively no borders in terms of the citizens right to move between countries and work and live wherever they wish. The rights and wrongs of that are a seperate debate, but generally what I regard the idea of no borders to mean is that there would still be distinct 'regions' with regional administrations with some limited powers, but a global government would preside over the whole lot with the power of veto over regional decisions not deemed to be in the global interest.

Global governance however can not be achieved until the exact nature of regional power is agreed and defined. There is already moves towards this model through the World Trade Organisation, World Health Organisation, the UN, the ICC, the G20 etc etc. Recent 'trade' deals like the TTP and the forthcoming TTIP are also maybe part of this. They are consideraby more than trade deals.

Ultimately what we could end up with is absolutely no restrictions on passing from one region to another, and this is an easy sell to the liberal left because it is perceived to be about freedom and reflecting the idea that we are "all as one" It works for the right because it allows foreign corporations to simply shift form one gloabl region to another mopping up public infrastructure and creating huge monopolies. That's what deals like the TTP and TTIP are supposed to do IMO.

Bush JR's deals with Canada and Mexico for 'super highways' and the concept of the North American Unon are also possibly part of the plan to move towards a world without borders, as breaking those borders down region by region over a long period of time is probably the only way that can be achieved. Imagine trying to do away with borders in the Middle East!! This, again may be one of the reasons we are so keen to install pro western regimes in all those countries; to make that process easier. Doesn't appear to be going very well though.

IMO.

Dean wrote: HackettFan wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: If we are talking borders between nations, then I don't think there will ever be any elimination of the borders as long as there are communities that try to preserve their own identity. But if we are talking borders between districts within the same nation, then that's a whole another story. (I know these are all details from a long, long time ago, but mayhaps relevant to some extent. See this and this.) I've always interpreted the no borders advocates as being against all borders, from national borders on down to the fences that keep them out of concerts they haven't bought tickets to. I don't see a difference in any case. It's not less of an imposition if a local sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma is elected by voters in California as opposed to voters in Mexico. I don't see how democracy (national or local) can co-exist with a no borders philosophy. Democracy works just fine with imaginary borders arbitrarily drawn on a map and would continue to work just as well without them. Each home, street, neighbourhood, parish, county, state, province and country operates its own democratic processes simply because what affects people on a local level is of no interest to those who reside outside that immediate locale. The span of control of those empowered to enact those democratic decisions extends as far as the people they can affect and that is set by arbitrary borders, yet the sphere of influence of each democratic decision extends as far as those affected by it and that can ignore those imaginary boundaries... just as a war in one region affects everyone in the neighbouring regions, and that in turn affects those in adjoining regions, a local decision that affects people outside that locale becomes undemocratic for those affected who where not permitted to vote upon it.  People in Orange County California are more concerned by who becomes sheriff in their county than they are about who is sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma or any of the other 3,141 counties in the USA (or the 300 electoral constituencies in Mexico or the 308 federal districts in Canada, etc.,)...When voter turnout in Orange County is as low as 17% then motivation for them to interfere in the voting in Comanche County will be negligible. A better example would be sports. While map-borders are only effective on a national level (though some sports fans have cross-border allegiances even at national level) if we look at club level those borders do not exist, for example football teams like Liverpool and Manchester United have fans all over the world and they by far outnumber any local fans they may have. Another example is "pay what it's worth", which is another system that operates just fine without arbitrarily imposed barriers - sure some people would attend a fence-less concert without paying, (just as some people attempt to jump those fences today), but the majority would pay something. As communication barriers between disparate peoples living in the far corners of the world are broken down, for example by the Internet, we will start seeing our similarities and in time will recognise they are more important than any parochial differences that currently divide us. Once those personal barriers are removed then national ones would become less relevant. This won't happen in our lifetimes, but contrary to Andy's assertion that this will be driven by "neo-liberal governments", it would be driven by the people of the world. [Yeah, that's still a utopian thought, but one that is far more realistic than any political or corporate attempts at globalisation].

Blacksword wrote: lazland wrote: Blacksword wrote: I do not believe there is a God. Fixed Nothing to fix Lazland. The question was which ideal do you still BELIEVE in. I replied 'There is no god' quoting directly the option presented by the poster. It kind of goes without saying that it is my 'belief' that there is no god. Sorry, it's pedant Sunday!

No need to apologise. I like pedantry.

Actually, your post was the unwitting catalyst for something that actually does genuinely bother me, and that is the extreme arrogance I find in many modern atheists.

Hugues posted something that spoke of the "fragility" of believers such as myself, and the fact that he knows there is no God, and the rest of us are wilting fantasists.

Your post is spot on. You believe there is no God, so I apologise to you in return. Atheism is as much a belief system as a religious one. Not one of us truly knows the "truth", and I suspect that it is a little more clever and subtle than either non belief or belief would have us think.

I do not believe because I am fragile. Atheists are equally susceptible to human fragility, anyway. I believe because I believe, and because, in my own little way, I have intelligent rationalism for my beliefs. In other words, I have made an intelligent judgement, based upon evidence.

The truth is not the exclusive preserve of atheists. Also, the nonsense that a world run by atheists would be any better is just that. Nonsense. Witness Stalin, for starters.

End of Sunday rant. I repeat my apology. My post was really directed at a wider audience, and I should have made that clear.

Very nice post Dean, pretty much agree with all of it.

Dean wrote: lazland wrote: Blacksword wrote: lazland wrote: Blacksword wrote: I do not believe there is a God. Fixed Nothing to fix Lazland. The question was which ideal do you still BELIEVE in. I replied 'There is no god' quoting directly the option presented by the poster. It kind of goes without saying that it is my 'belief' that there is no god. Sorry, it's pedant Sunday! No need to apologise. I like pedantry. Actually, your post was the unwitting catalyst for something that actually does genuinely bother me, and that is the extreme arrogance I find in many modern atheists. Hugues posted something that spoke of the "fragility" of believers such as myself, and the fact that he knows there is no God, and the rest of us are wilting fantasists. Your post is spot on. You believe there is no God, so I apologise to you in return. Atheism is as much a belief system as a religious one. Not one of us truly knows the "truth", and I suspect that it is a little more clever and subtle than either non belief or belief would have us think. I do not believe because I am fragile. Atheists are equally susceptible to human fragility, anyway. I believe because I believe, and because, in my own little way, I have intelligent rationalism for my beliefs. In other words, I have made an intelligent judgement, based upon evidence. The truth is not the exclusive preserve of atheists. Also, the nonsense that a world run by atheists would be any better is just that. Nonsense. Witness Stalin, for starters. End of Sunday rant. I repeat my apology. My post was really directed at a wider audience, and I should have made that clear. Meh, atheism isn't a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. The opposite of belief in gods can be expressed in two ways that at face value seem the same but are not (subtle but far from clever): <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"> <span style="line-height: 18.2px;">1. I believe that gods do not exist... which can be expressed as I believe that gods </span><i style="line-height: 18.2px;">!{<i style="line-height: 18.2px;">exist} 2. I do not believe that gods exist... which can be expressed as I !{believe} that gods exist <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"> where ! is the logical negation or NOT function. <span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;">One is negating the existence of gods and is thus a belief, while the second is negating the belief in the existence of gods and therefore is not a belief. It is easy to confuse these two expressions because once one has been accepted then it tends to imply the other. </span><span style="line-height: 1.4;">Since believers in gods cannot prove that their gods exist then atheists only need to reject </span><i style="line-height: 1.4;">the belief<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> to be able to assert that [the lack of evidence suggests] gods do not exist. </span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;">Unlike Hugues, I would never claim to know that there are no gods, but still class myself an atheist rather than an agnostic - as someone with a scientific background I am always wary of any claims to know anything as truth... for me a truth is something that has not yet been proven to be false. Unfortunately you cannot use this line of reasoning for a belief because beliefs are not falsifiable so cannot be tested, scientific truths are falsifiable so can be tested. </span> However I agree with Madan when he says that gods are an invention of man, because that is a valid conclusion we can make from the current evidence. Just as we invented a physical object to address a physical need, gods were invented to address a spiritual need. This explains why all human civilisations had/have religion, yet all had/have different gods. As he goes on to say, this does not invalidate belief (it can, but it doesn't have to) only some aspects of the religions that are built around them. For atheists this spiritual need is less important, or is resolved by other means, such as rationalising the world around them. Hugues suggests that spiritual need is an indication of fragility (his actual words were "more fragile"), which is undeniably true for some - some find support and reassurance in religion, especially when they are at their lowest ebb, but generalisations are doomed to be wrong. <span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;">Would a world without religion be a better place? Who knows? But it cannot be any worse. [The bad deeds of the few regimes that were also atheistic does not counter all the bad deeds committed in the name of religion]. Without religion those who would wage war and oppression would find other excuses, but those would be far harder to justify perhaps. It is difficult to imagine the troubles in Northern Ireland being fought over non-sectarian causes, because when both sides are stripped of their religion then there is little else to separate them.</span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span>

Dean, I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of atheists, if asked to express an opinion, would deny the existence of God(s). The point I was making, in response to other points on this thread, was that, as you say, is a belief system in itself. The other common definition of atheism, as you say, the denial of a belief system of God(s) is not, of itself, a belief system. It is simply the choice of persons to refuse to partake in such a belief system.

Anyone who follows blindly the, for example, "militant" (note quote) atheism of Dawkins (and I have read him, for the purpose of trying to understand his viewpoint) would absolutely deny the existence of God. Dawkins does not just attack the belief system of religious society, although he does that as well, but absolutely seeks to prove that we are just a happy accident of evolution and scientific chance, and that God had bugger all to do with this, because God simply does not exist.

I read an interesting quote from him in The Times a few weeks ago. When asked on his thoughts about impending mortality, he said he was not overly concerned. Why? Well, according to the great man, it was "like being under general anaesthetic". Oh really? My retort? How the bloody hell does he know? And does he really imagine that this would be some form of comfort to the great unwashed masses? Why did he feel the need to make such a comment, which is absolutely incapable itself of being proven, or unproven. He is a scientist. Why not respond as one, instead of speaking for all the world as if he, himself, is the guru of a pseudo religious, or anti religious, cult?

I stand by my comment regarding the arrogance of much of modern atheism, and I hope that this is not a generalisation we would both object to. As a scientist, you will know that we are no closer to truly understanding where, or how, creation came about. Until that day comes, I will continue my fragile beliefs.